Whenever we present on climate change and food, we expect questions, and possibly a debate, about meat. But so far the focus has always been surprise and confusion about our local food stance. At Drawdown Dietetics, we want to call everyone’s attention to plant-rich diets (reduced meat consumption) and food waste reduction in Canada, because these two things make by far the biggest difference in lowering food emissions. Right now, though, we feel we need to address the confusion around local food, and show clearly what it can and can’t do. Until we let go of local food as a solution to climate change, it’s going to continue to distract everyone from moving strategically towards drawdown.
Whenever we get pushback on local food, it often sends me (Anneke) on an internal spiral: Are we wrong about this? Why is there not more awareness of the evidence? In the last few months alone, we’ve seen local food promoted for its sustainability benefits by Dietitians of Canada, Food + Planet, and even at COP26! That’s right–even the good people organizing the international climate change conference assume that local food is important for emissions reduction. Yet every time I go back to the literature, I find more studies that conclude that local food is usually no better, and sometimes worse, than global food (in terms of climate change).
In our first webinar (March 30th), I explained this from a Canadian perspective (as a cold country, it’s much harder to grow most foods efficiently here). When I went back to the literature again, though, I saw a new review from 2021 that demonstrates that this same conclusion applies for most of the world’s population! In only a few places in the world would local food consistently lower emissions (in these places, the soil is fertile and the climate is warm). We highly recommend the meta-analysis linked at the end of this post to see the evidence laid out (Stein & Santini, 2022). The key take-away is that “food miles” as a concept reduces the complexity of food-related emissions too much to be useful.
Why are we still promoting local food in climate change messages?
-
It appeals to our intuitions. The locavore movement and the 100-mile diet are understandable responses to the high numbers of miles most food travels to get to the consumer. In other areas of climate change mitigation, transportation is a focus (e.g., driving to work), so people transfer that message to food transportation. Popular writers like Michael Pollan have also promoted the message. Unfortunately, this intuition has misled us when it comes to emissions.
-
Lack of knowledge and access to the research on climate change. Most foodies and dietitians do not review research on greenhouse gas emissions, and where the greatest opportunities are for lowering emissions in the food system. Also, climate change researchers and dietitians don’t regularly communicate.
-
We assume that self-provision means resilience. We assume that producing foods nearby means we will have access to that food in times of stress, like a natural disaster or supply chain issues. However, research shows that local food systems are less resilient than global systems.
-
Other perceived benefits like economic benefits, political benefits, community-building, and fair labour practices get bundled with climate change mitigation.
-
It’s politically appealing, so we are encouraged to continue making this recommendation (e.g. Ontario’s Local Food Act). Most journalism reinforces the same narrative in mainstream media.
There are many more items on this list that we haven’t included here. For example, we were once asked if local food is more nutritious, because produce is picked closer to natural ripeness. As far as we’re aware, this has not been demonstrated by research. Like everything, it’s possible that this will turn out to be true! But at the moment, the evidence does not back this claim.
If people like the idea of local food, and it’s not doing harm, what’s the problem?
We need to stop climate change as quickly as possible. The IPCC estimates that we have about 3 years in which to achieve the Paris Agreement’s 1.5°C of global heating. Local food is standing in the way of progress because it’s directing time, attention, and resources away from what really matters in reducing emissions: eating less meat from ruminant animals (cows, sheep, and goats), and creating less food waste (and redirecting waste to composting systems). This is an opportunity cost we can’t afford. The public buy local food and believe they’ve done their part, when in reality, they may be spending more money and getting no emissions reductions (in some cases they may even be increasing emissions).
Another downside of the “buy local” message in nutrition is that it sometimes conflicts with culturally sensitive practice: if individual clients or groups are newcomers to Canada, or prefer certain imported culturally significant foods, it sets up a dilemma for dietitians because they feel they must choose between environmentally friendly practice and culturally appropriate foods. Since local foods are usually no more climate-friendly than global foods, this dilemma is unfounded and can be dismissed.
We also need to maintain trust that as dietitians, we’re accurately translating evidence for the public. The more we promote local food as a sustainable action, the more it will be clear that we’re not looking at the research. If we drop the promotion of local food and refocus our efforts where we can make a difference, we’ll be communicating science accurately, and as a bonus we may be able to lower emissions of the food system faster and slow down climate change. So let’s go!
If you’re interested in more on food miles, check out new content at our website: www.drawdowndietetics.org/local. And if you know of any good studies that conclude that we should be eating locally for the environment, please send it to us! Our organizational values include being evidence-based, open-minded, and responsive, so if the evidence changes, we are ready to revise our position.
Thanks for reading,
Anneke & Renita
Quotations from key reviews:
“In terms of environmental sustainability, in particular, the notion that “food miles” could be used as an indicator for a product’s carbon footprint has been widely rejected in the literature; a food product’s carbon footprint depends much more on land use, production efficiencies, economies of scale in transport, or whether it is plant-based, than on the distance it travelled.”
Stein, A.J., Santini, F. The sustainability of “local” food: a review for policy-makers. Rev Agric Food Environ Stud 103, 77–89 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s41130-021-00148-w
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s41130-021-00148-w#author-information
“Food travels enormous distances. But given the great range of emission intensities for different modes of transportation, reducing food miles alone is strategically insufficient.”
Rod MacRae, Vijay Cuddeford, Steven B. Young & Moira Matsubuchi-Shaw (2013). The Food System and Climate Change: An Exploration of Emerging Strategies to Reduce GHG Emissions in Canada, Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems, 37:8, 933-963, DOI: 10.1080/21683565.2013.774302